Re: What is racism and what makes it wrong?

DanielCC wrote:

The reason though one is (normally) expected to owe greater deference is because (normally) those parties are responsible for one's welfare and development, and thus are due gratitude.

You are right they are responsible; but you are wrong that failure to take up that responsibility takes away the responsibility that is the cause even in your scheme for honoring them. Regardless, dishonoring your parents is a wrong and a sin, period, and this by natural law even. We should not speak ill of our parents.

By natural law we owe allegiance to our family and relatives and from there the allegiance is extended outward. If my sister is starving to death and a stranger begs me for food, I am obliged first to look after my sister. Her genetics are sufficient grounds for and grant her a right to expect preferential treatment from me: if my family is under threat of extermination, I am bound by natural law to protect them; by extension, my people or kin more broadly, and so on outward but in that natural order. My nation cannot without absolutely just cause lawfully attempt to exterminate my family nor can they lawfully compel me to participate in it because the family is the first nation and wellspring of all nations. The nation state can be compelled by force if necessary to honor and respect the family unit: but this is based on genetics. Therefore genetics can and indeed do have moral import. Moreover, it is just grounds for rebellion and even revolution if the State attempts to destroy families, specifically or generally. This is why Communist states and tyrannies have no legitimate rights or authority as such but only as much and to the extent just States are willing to concede them for the purposes of peace or to secure some greater good.

DanielCC wrote:

If one's biological father does nothing for one and an adopted father provides everything it is to that latter all filial reverence is due. If a parent encourages or asks an immoral action from their off-spring they are owed no more obedience than a stranger however.

False and a quick example will show its falsity: Let's say you were kidnapped and stolen from your actual parents in a human trafficking ring and sent to some foreign place or nation and you were rescued then adopted and raised by Christian foster parents. Why would you not still owe your natural mother and father filial love, devotion and respect?

Re: What is racism and what makes it wrong?

Timocrates wrote:

By natural law we owe allegiance to our family and relatives and from there the allegiance is extended outward. If my sister is starving to death and a stranger begs me for food, I am obliged first to look after my sister.

As you would be to a friend or loved one. This additional obligation stems from the habitual affections between the two of you, however not any genetic bond. Were that sister adopted it would be of no relevance to the situation.

Timocrates wrote:

Her genetics are sufficient grounds for and grant her a right to expect preferential treatment from me: if my family is under threat of extermination, I am bound by natural law to protect them; by extension, my people or kin more broadly, and so on outward but in that natural order.

What argument do you have to justify that claim? On it's own it merely begs the question against my personal agency argument as to why this isn't the case. I'm not a natural law theorist, but even if I were it would require further argument to justify that point.

Timocrates wrote:

My nation cannot without absolutely just cause lawfully attempt to exterminate my family nor can they lawfully compel me to participate in it because the family is the first nation and wellspring of all nations.

Historically that may be the case, but that says nothing about its moral value. Even if we accept the nation is modeled after the family unit my account of filial love can accord for this (the family is a more biologically basic model of dependence, co-operation and gratitude).

Timocrates wrote:

Moreover, it is just grounds for rebellion and even revolution if the State attempts to destroy families, specifically or generally. This is why Communist states and tyrannies have no legitimate rights or authority as such but only as much and to the extent just States are willing to concede them for the purposes of peace or to secure some greater good.

Totalitarian governments attack the family for the same reason they attack religious organizations outside of their control: because they cannot tolerate any competing moral obligations.

Timocrates wrote:

False and a quick example will show its falsity: Let's say you were kidnapped and stolen from your actual parents in a human trafficking ring and sent to some foreign place or nation and you were rescued then adopted and raised by Christian foster parents. Why would you not still owe your natural mother and father filial love, devotion and respect?

Whether one owes the original parents anything beyond what one owes any human depends on their intentions: if they still will (to themselves bring about ) all the goods that are due that lost child then one owes them love at least. Your example though suggests that said original parents have already contributed to that child's upbringing though, hence can hardly be considered strangers.